March 5th&6th Primaries & Caucuses (Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, and Nebraska)
341 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cody8295;49896465]uhh, I think people of all races would vote to elect berne over any GOP candidate[/QUOTE]
Didn't say they would switch sides, however I believe voter turn out would be lower for the Dem's side.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49896489]Didn't say they would switch sides, however I believe voter turn out would be lower.[/QUOTE]
i think voter turnout would be record low if had the choice clinton vs trump
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49896489]Didn't say they would switch sides, however I believe voter turn out would be lower for the Dem's side.[/QUOTE]
It won't be lower than the loss of voter turnout if hillary wins the nomination from all the other groups.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49896489]Didn't say they would switch sides, however I believe voter turn out would be lower for the Dem's side.[/QUOTE]
still, im looking forward to a Sanders v Trump debate
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49896489]Didn't say they would switch sides, however I believe voter turn out would be lower for the Dem's side.[/QUOTE]
lower but remember the young vote is the pushing force behind the bern and what he should continue to focus on.
i know i'm going to vote, and I haven't before
edited:
63 percent in, 3.1 percent lead for sanders. Still more than 1/3rd of wayne county uncounted
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;49896513]lower but remember the young vote is pushing the main force bern forward and what he should continue to focus on.
i know i'm going to vote, and I haven't before[/QUOTE]
While generally Young vote is the lowest turn out amongst all voting ages, Bernie is doing a good job by rallying a lot.
[QUOTE=cody8295;49896518]61 percent reporting, bernie ahead by 3. Still more than 2/3rds of wayne county still uncounted[/QUOTE]
bbc has a graphic that shows vote by county in michigan if anyone is interested (scroll down):
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35760148[/url]
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49896519]While generally Young vote is the lowest turn out amongst all voting ages, Bernie is doing a good job by rallying a lot.[/QUOTE]
he's making young voters who wouldn't normally vote, vote. it's going to be interesting
(also, you quoted my fucked up post before i edited it damnit lol)
Clinton has done way worse among black voters in Michigan than she did in Mississippi. Sanders' policy on trade and jobs connects with them much more in the North.
Bernie is up 3.66% with 69.73% reporting. Hopefully this is it?
72 percent reporting with a 4 percent lead for sanders.
Still only ~60% of Wayne County (Detroit) counted. It could change drastically. Still, no matter what happens, the delegates are going to be basically split.
I'm not having another Io "clinton won lol" wa
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49896619]Still only ~60% of Wayne County (Detroit) counted. It could change drastically. Still, no matter what happens, the delegates are going to be basically split.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Wayne County, for instance, includes Detroit and a lot of far whiter suburban precincts. We don't know whether the city of Detroit or Flint reported most or few of its votes, and that's a lot more important than the county breakdown.[/QUOTE]
Nate cohn says in the Nytime live feed
Clinton has ~90,000 votes in Wayne right now, given that's only 2/3rds, we can assume she has another ~45,000 coming from Wayne. This puts her still very much in the race because Bernie is only ahead by ~30,000 votes, and if Clinton gets a big turnout, she can get even more than 45,000.
[QUOTE=lope;49896662]Clinton has ~90,000 votes in Wayne right now, given that's only 2/3rds, we can assume she has another ~45,000 coming from Wayne. This puts her still very much in the race because Bernie is only ahead by ~30,000 votes, and if Clinton gets a big turnout, she can get even more than 45,000.[/QUOTE]
We can't assume that because we don't know the makeup of the counted votes. Wayne is a diverse county
Roughly 64% of Wayne County has already reported leaving 36% unaccounted for. Even if it's entirely Detroit votes left then at 82% black and given a somewhat high estimate of 75% of them voting for Hillary then that gives her roughly 22% of the remaining 36 and 53.3k more votes with that. Bernie would then get 14% of the remaining 36 and receive 33.9k votes. This gives Hillary 19.4k more votes compared to Bernie but with the lead already being at 20k+ it would still result in a Bernie win. If the same were to happen with Flint though it could cause a Hillary win.
[QUOTE=lope;49896662]Clinton has ~90,000 votes in Wayne right now, given that's only 2/3rds, we can assume she has another ~45,000 coming from Wayne. This puts her still very much in the race because Bernie is only ahead by ~30,000 votes, and if Clinton gets a big turnout, she can get even more than 45,000.[/QUOTE]
And Bernie has around 2 votes for every 3 Clinton has in Wayne, so if she gets around ~45,000 more from there, Bernie would still get around ~30,000, so her net gain would only be ~15,000.
It's still anybody's race, but Sanders isn't being absolutely crushed in Wayne as of yet.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49896680]And Bernie has around 2 votes for every 3 Clinton has in Wayne, so if she gets around ~45,000 more from there, Bernie would still get around ~30,000, so her net gain would only be ~15,000.
It's still anybody's race, but Sanders isn't being absolutely crushed in Wayne as of yet.[/QUOTE]
Yep, NY Times just updates their results with 75% of Wayne in and Clinton actually dipped in her percentage there while she gained a bit in the state overall.
Doesnt look like she can pull it off like this.
Another 100 precincts in Wayne just boosted Hillary ~25,000, Bernie still has around a ~20k lead with 92% in.
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
FYI, CNN on the TV has much more up-to-date statistics of Michigan than NY Times.
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/mi/Dem"]here's their site[/URL]
Holy fuck that dip.
The polls just got very close: 49.9 Sanders to 48.1 Clinton
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
Still 20% of Wayne to go.
You know what I notice, CNN and the NY Times show almost exactly the same data (NY Times behind by around about 2k votes), but CNN claims 92% reporting vs. NY Times 84% reporting.
Are you guys watching this live? Is [URL="http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/michigan"]this site[/URL] accurate?
About 50,000 votes still to come from Wayne, if they keep the 2/3 ratio, that's a 10,000+ net for Hillary, which will put her right on the brink of beating Bernie. He really needs to ensure that 2/3 ratio doesn't spread.
Back to a %3 lead for Bernie.
[QUOTE=lope;49896728]About 50,000 votes still to come from Wayne, if they keep the 2/3 ratio, that's a 10,000+ net for Hillary, which will put her right on the brink of beating Bernie. He really needs to ensure that 2/3 ratio doesn't spread.[/QUOTE]
In the event of a 50:50 tie like this, neither one really wins, 1 delagate isn't going to change things, the issue is he needs the black vote badly, he can't afford to loose a state by 85% anymore
[QUOTE=Sableye;49896751]In the event of a 50:50 tie like this, neither one really wins, 1 delagate isn't going to change things, the issue is he needs the black vote badly, he can't afford to loose a state by 85% anymore[/QUOTE]
That's why either way it's a statistical victory for Bernie. But the momentum game isn't a buzz word. Seeing Bernie's name in the headlines next to: "UNEXPECTED VICTORY" could be a yuge morale boost.
50.4 for sanders 47.6 to clinton, 92% reporting in via cnn
[QUOTE=Sableye;49896751]In the event of a 50:50 tie like this, neither one really wins, 1 delagate isn't going to change things, the issue is he needs the black vote badly, he can't afford to loose a state by 85% anymore[/QUOTE]
Perception is important; winning would be extremely good for perception especially after how terrible he was polling, because he can use that as a message of "even if the polls are bad, go and vote". He can still do that, but a win would be better for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.